HOT TOPICS

IT'S TIME TO THINK THE WORST

CIWEM Executive Director, Nick Reeves, thinks the unthinkable.

Great news, the environment is now embedded in foreign policy.  The science of climate change is settled and so certain that it's no longer a matter for debate.  Given these facts it is possible to be optimistic and assume that - at long last - something will be done to avert us from the spectre of eco-catastrophe.  Well, you'd think so.  But, I have my doubts.

Not only do I doubt that it is possible, I don't - after much soul-searching - believe that economically-driven politicians are prepared, or even able, to introduce the changes that are necessary that will make a difference quickly enough.  It is a 'fault' of consumer-led democracies that our political leaders need our consent and consensus.  Sadly, they won't get either any time soon.

So, I'm thinking the unthinkable: if it's too late to do enough that will make a difference, we should just accept the inevitable and painful route to the end of the way we live now.  It's time to acknowledge that we cannot continue to harm the planet and get away with it, and that if we're not prepared to act now, we have no choice but to let global warming do its worst.  Let extreme climate and ecological change be the result of our profligacy that is our just reward for being the most pernicious species on the Earth.

But note, much of humankind would probably not survive the inevitable transition to a new geological era and would result in huge loss of life, the emergence (over time) of new species and new ecological structures.  This eco-makeover would be tough for our kids and several generations to come.  But the result will surely be a better balance between people and the planet.  Who knows, planet Earth could metamorphose into a safer and much more interesting and diverse place.  Meantime, we'll just have to put up with another series of Top Gear.

If I'm right then maybe we should welcome climate change, learn to accept it and adapt to its consequences through a process of managed retreat for a soft landing.  Just accept the inevitable and bask in the idea of a new and more exciting era.  I realise that this will not be a popular idea but, be honest, is there any chance of introducing massive change in human behaviour across the world within 20 years or so?  And, is it possible to reverse population growth that is one of the root causes of climate change?  For the answer to that, just consider what is happening right now.

Consider the silly posturing of some countries at the United Nations (UN) climate change conference in Bali last year and it would be easy to sink into a state of utter despair.  You'd be forgiven for thinking that plans for action on a warming world have been handed over to the Surrealists. 

Having read yet another gloomy report from the UN on the state of the planet, I'm getting that terrible sinking feeling that makes me want to bury my face in a pillow and accept  the inevitability of catastrophe.

There were tit-bits of good news.  For instance, lead has almost entirely disappeared from petrol almost everywhere and sulphur emissions have been reduced significantly in most rich countries of the west.  But, if you're one of those who takes heart from such crumbs of comfort and think that all will be well in the end, I beg to differ.  There was one big issue in the report that really spooked me and haunts me still:  crop production has improved over the last 20 years or so (up from 1.8 tonnes per hectare to 2.5 tonnes today) but, sadly, it hasn't kept pace with population growth.  'World cereal production per person peaked in the 1980s, and has since slowly decreased'.  Around a third of the people who have ever lived are alive today and by 2050 there will be roughly nine billion souls.  Feeding them, providing them with water, and meeting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on hunger would require world food production to increase by 100 percent.  The killer fact is this:  unless we reverse population growth, cut waste, overeating, bio-fuels and the consumption of meat, total demand for cereal crops could rise to three times the current level.

There are a few limiting factors.  The big one is water.  Meeting the MDG on hunger will require doubling of water use for crops by 2050.  But, where will the water come from?  Water scarcity is already acute in many parts of the world, and increasingly so.  Farming already takes the lion's share from rivers, streams and from groundwater.  Water waste and embedded water in food and other products is on the increase.  Consequently, a staggering ten percent of the world's major rivers no longer reach the sea year round.

'If present trends continue, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity by 2025, and two-thirds of the world population could be subject to water stress.'  This chilling projection is buried on page 148 of the report.  Wastage and deforestation are partly to blame, but the biggest cause of the coming droughts is climate change.  Rainfall will decline most in the places in greatest need of water.  So how on earth, unless there's a sudden decline in carbon emissions (or population), are we going to feed the people of the world?  How will we prevent the social and economic collapse that failure will surely cause?

A boat passes by and causes ripples on a lake.  But once it's gone, the water is smooth again.  You, reading this, will turn the page and get on with your busy life.  We know that climate change could cause half the world's species to disappear; that 25 primate species are slipping into extinction; that biological stores of carbon are beginning to release it faster than anyone predicted.  But everyone is watching and waiting for someone else to make a move.  Meantime Russia, the US, Canada and others are hell-bent on extracting new sources of fossil fuels as the polar ice cap melts to reveal its hidden secrets.  The universal thought is this:  'If the situation were really so bad, surely someone would have done something by now?'

Yet, who will persuade us to act?  No matter how convincing the opposition parties' policies might be they are meaningless unless the voters back them.  We won't be coerced by the media (whose scare stories risk pushing an undecided public from a state of concern into one of despair).  In fear of breaching its own impartiality code the BBC drops plans for Planet Relief but continues to broadcast Top Gear (that thumbs its nose at the BBC's guidelines every week and now looks as relevant as the Black and White Minstrel Show).

The BBC and other broadcasting organisations pack their schedules with programmes that urge us to fly more, drive faster, build bigger, buy more, yet none of them are deemed to have breached any rules.  Which really means they don't upset the interests of the business community or the sensibilities of the Aga classes.  Meantime, the media, driven by fear and advertising, are hopelessly biased towards the 'me, me' consumer economy and don't give a fig for the biosphere.  Even the normally on-message Guardian and Independent newspapers include adverts for cars, consumer goods and cheap flights, while taking the high ground, urging their readers to go green.

It seems to me that as the biosphere shrinks so we lose our core beliefs and values.  A hardening of vested interests and a shutting down of concern is taking place in the rich west and in the new economies of the developing world.  We do not need to wait for the forests to burn, the water to disappear or food supplies to shrivel before we realise that civilisation, as we know it, is in irreversible decline.  We can stop hurting the planet by changing our ways.  We all know how to undo the damage.  All it takes is a little humility and a touch of humanity.